Reactions to CLOUD

Science at work

The various polarised reactions to the CLOUD experiment’s initial results demonstrates how the climate debate has become mired in politics, petty point scoring and one-upmanship.

What would a proper, impartial scientist say in response to yesterday’s news? I guess something like “these results are really interesting because they add to our understanding of cloud formation mechanisms in the atmosphere, which will add to our understanding and attribution of climate change. As a scientist untainted by politics or funding, I don’t object to the fact that these results may contradict or challenge my ideas about climate, my only goal is to seek the scientific truth.”

Yet what did we get? Hordes of alarmists desperately trying to rubbish and dismiss the experiment before the ink was even dry on the paper. Media organisations either ignored it, or reminded us all that it was all CO2’s fault, and nothing in this experiment changes any of that. How tragic.

Unfortunately, entire research departments are built on the wobbly foundations of CO2 being the primary driver of climate change (together with the attendant funding that such a view attracts), and that position must be defended from possible attack at all costs.

And no sensible climate sceptic would go further than saying that this is an interesting course of further enquiry, and confirms that there may be some climatological effect from galactic cosmic rays – and that there is still more to learn about the climate – duh. The commenter yesterday who claimed we were all rejoicing at “another nail in the AGW coffin” not only misrepresents the sceptic community, but paints our thought processes in the same light as those of the funded and politicised alarmists. They are not.

If there is anything that reaction tells us, it is that mainstream climate science is more politics than science.


  1. Brian Freeman via Facebook says:

    Thank you Simon, couldn’t hope to put it better myself.

  2. this was an actual experiment with actual observed results. the experiment can be re-run and the results would be the same. seems some real science at last. well done svensmark…basically, high solar activity = low cosmic rays = lower cloud cover = warmer world. low solar activity = high cosmic rays = higher cloud cover = cooler world. who’d a thunk it?

  3. The one thing this Cern CLOUD experiment does confirm is that there is more happening in our climate systems than scientists currently understand, which makes a mockery of alarmists that say the science is settled. How can anything be settled if it is not fully understood?


      Baldrick. It was a long time (well, in our extremely limited earthly time) that I was at university, but I reckon that given the earth has managed to survive over 4 billion years that it is almost bloody impossible for Johny come lately upstart scientists to be able to comprehend every influence and subsequent consequence, so as to be able to predict that mankind will be very shortly either drowned or fried!

    • It is amazing how difficult it is to get that last point into so many thick skulls!


    Simon you may like to rephrase your last sentence,.. If there is anything that reaction tells us, it is that mainstream climate science is more politics than science. TO… “If there is anything that reaction tells us, it is that mainstream climate science is more political science than practical science.”

  5. Mervyn Sullivan says:

    There is no way that the CO2/anthropogenic global warming establishment will ever give up the ghost, no matter what the scientific observations reveal. The UN, and governments around the world such as in the EU, have set up a momentum for decarbonizing western economies and maintaining the rage. The science is irrelevant to them. They’ve all nailed their reputations to the Co2 cross and too much is now at stake to even acknowledge they could be wrong.

    As for Dr Kirkby, I think he has been politically correct in the way the results of this study have been presented. But then, I guess he had to be, if he intends following up on this study with another at CERN, and obtain the necessary funding.

    It is simply shameful how political corruption has now turned climate science into a joke. Whenever a study is released, what must we now make of it? Can we trust the peer-review process? Can we trust the scientists? Can we even trust the integrity of the data? Abiding by the scientific method is no longer guaranteed… conflicts of interest are rampant… typical of what happens when politics interferes with science. And it can only ever be resolved if the scientists themselves organize themselves and send a clear message to governments to provide the research grants and leave the science to scientists.

  6. The climate change gravy train will not be stopped or even slowed down. Any contradictory evidence or arguments will not be agknowedged let alone validated by these alarmists.

%d bloggers like this: